but this seems to be mostly about doubts over if HIV is transmitted through breastfeeding, and weighing the pros and cons of recommending third world HIV positive mothers not breastfeed.

I was just wondering if there is an actual position of Mothering on this issue, and this seemed like the place to discuss it...

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

There was a thread on this a while ago (maybe last year) but I can't remember if anyone from Mothering responded with an official position. I think it arose from the Mothering magazine article about Christine Maggiore refusing to take antiretrovirals while pregnant with her daughter and then breast feeding her. They are both believed to have died of PCP although I'm not sure if it was confirmed in the case of the mother.

Sorry I can't link the thread, I can't remember what it was called and it's hard to search on my phone. Maybe someone else can remember what it was called.

Thanks. I think that's the article I linked. Would be interesting to read the thread....

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

Mothering magazine published several articles in the late nineties and early 2000s about moms who tested positive to HIV and were asking questions about taking AIDS medications while pregnant and/or breastfeeding. These were moms with no symptoms of illness who questioned their HIV diagnosis (pregnancy can "cause" a false positive HIV test). We were criticized by some for this coverage, but it was a lifeline for the moms. I saw it as no different than publishing articles about moms questioning any other standard medical practice.

Our Wikepedia entry was written by our critics and does not do justice to our history of award winning journalism. Our coverage of these HIV moms led to more research on exclusive breastfeeding and AIDS transmission and ultimately to a change in the feeding guidelines for HIV moms, who are now encouraged to breastfeed.

Peggy, the AIDS denialist organization, Alive and Well AIDS Alternatives, which was founded by Christine Maggiore, still lists you as a member of their advisory board: http://www.aliveandwell.org/ (if you click on "about us" and scroll down, all board members are listed). Are you still a board member? What is your position on HIV/AIDS denialism? What is the position of Mothering.com?

eta: The articles that Peggy mentions appear to me to be promoting HIV/AIDS denialism in no uncertain terms:

Not to mention that pregnancy does not cause a "false positive HIV test." Pregnancy, and many other conditions, can cause a positive ELISA screen, which is why every positive ELISA screen undergoes a confirmatory Western Blot test. I am interested, Peggy, in seeing any evidence you have that pregnancy causes either a positive Western Blot or a positive HIV viral load.

Our Wikepedia entry was written by our critics and does not do justice to our history of award winning journalism. Our coverage of these HIV moms led to more research on exclusive breastfeeding and AIDS transmission and ultimately to a change in the feeding guidelines for HIV moms, who are now encouraged to breastfeed.

Who is encouraging HIV moms to breastfeed? Where?

I mean, outside of third world countries where the risks of formula mixed with unlcean water or not being able to access/afford enough formula can outweigh the risks of HIV. But you make it sound as if the recommendation was changed for HIV positive mothers in general, even in areas with safe water and where formula is readily available.

Not to mention that pregnancy does not cause a "false positive HIV test." Pregnancy, and many other conditions, can cause a positive ELISA screen, which is why every positive ELISA screen undergoes a confirmatory Western Blot test. I am interested, Peggy, in seeing any evidence you have that pregnancy causes either a positive Western Blot or a positive HIV viral load.

Some people may be eager to argue that if a factor is only known to cause false-positives on ELISA, this problem won't be carried over to the WB, so everything should be OK. But remember, a WB is positive by virtue of accumulating enough individual positive bands to add up to the total required by whatever criteria you use to interpret it (39) So the more exposures a person has had to foreign antigens, proteins and infectious agents, the more various antibodies he or she will have in their system, and the more likely it is that there will be several cross-reacting antibodies, enough to make the WB positive.

Here a a few risk factors from the list:

Vaccinations: flu, HepB, Tetanus

Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines

Autoimmune diseases

Pregnancy in multiparous women

The flu vaccine is recommended for pregnant women. Multiparous women are are likely to have been exposed to viral vaccines if they have older children. Add to this the many other auto-immune diseases rampant today, and it is not inconceivable that a pregnant women will all those factors could have a false positive to both the ELISA and WB tests.

t

"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio

The concerns listed in the article linked in Mirzam's post are mainly theoretical, stating that certain things could potentially happen, rather than that they have happened. There is one reference (#47) given for actual cases of false-positive Western blot results. That reference describes four specific cases where some, but not all, bands on a Western blot showed positive due to cross-reactivity. In those cases, there was an atypical pattern of which bands reacted and which did not, compared with the typical true-positive pattern. So that rare pattern should stand out to the person reading the results, and they should follow up in those cases with a PCR test, along with specific testing for known cross-reactive proteins.

These four cases were found among the millions of blood samples that are tested across the country from blood donations. A false positive on a Western blot is worthy of description in a journal case study because such an event is vanishingly rare. Considering that such rare cases are also identifiable due to the atypical pattern of results, and that our current technology allows us to do follow-up testing that would protect anyone from unnecessary treatment even in these extremely rare cases, I'm not seeing any justification for encouraging a mother to refuse HIV screening, follow-up testing, or treatment when such treatment is indicated. We are talking about potentially lethal consequences here. This is in a whole different ballpark from stroller or sling, vegetarian or GFCF. So I'm looking forward to seeing what Peggy has to say about this.

Peggy, the AIDS denialist organization, Alive and Well AIDS Alternatives, which was founded by Christine Maggiore, still lists you as a member of their advisory board: http://www.aliveandwell.org/ (if you click on "about us" and scroll down, all board members are listed). Are you still a board member? What is your position on HIV/AIDS denialism? What is the position of Mothering.com?

For what it's worth....I live in Kenya and DH works for a maternal and infant health program in nairobi's slums. HIV moms are encouraged to breast feed unil 6 months, then wean quickly over the course of one week. This is the current WHO protocol but it changes periodically. They want moms to breast feed bc the babies need the immunities, and bc it's a virtual guarantee they'll become malnourished otherwise as poor moms can't afford formula and typically resort to cows milk, rice, water etc. The quick weaning is meant to protect babies from contracting HIV, unless they were exposed during birth, but is not a guarantee. Still, commonplace belief is that breatfeeding and taking the risk of hiv exposure is preferable to severe malnutrition. Which i find interesting....sort of a lose-lose, regardless. Im not trying to hijack this thread, I just thought some people would be interested by the developing world take on this.

Yeah, it's based on studies that show mixed feeding is the most dangerous in terms of HIV transmission. So they want the kids either only breastfeed or only on formula/other foods not both at once any more than can be helped.

But that's in areas where the risk of not being able to access a steady supply of formula or the risk of formula mixed with dirty water outweighs the risk of HIV transmission. In developed nations clean water and social problems to help supply formula to those who can't afford it on their own, the risk of HIV transmission greatly outweigh the benefits of breastfeeding, and the recommendation is absolutely to bottle feed. This generally means formula, though donor milk is also an option to those fortunate enough to have access to a safe supply of it.